Climate Change Solutions (1 Viewer)

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:35
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
5,844
From my perspective, I don't think standard of living has anything to do with it. Why should those who have a better lifestyle be allowed to pollute even more per person relative to the impoverished? Doesn't make sense to me.

Does this explain why Prince Harry and Meghan Markle fly to polo events in private jets, whilst espousing the virtues of a low carbon footprint? They feel their superior standard of living justifies their excessive CO2 output and hypocritical posturing. "Not guilty Guv. I'm posh!"
 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:35
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
14,452
Getting back to the purpose of this thread, I would like to avoid the blame issue!

It is a natural tendency to want to blame someone else for your woes, you've just got to spend a bit of time on Facebook or Twitter to see this.

It is not time now to try and lay the blame at anyone's feet, it's time to step forward and say it's me, I am responsible, just as responsible as anyone else. Then you need to transmit this message up the chain, to your MP, congressman, religious leader, to your union, your company, your family, to anyone and everyone that you respect. Indeed they already know it but no one is stepping forward!
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 05:35
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,715
My posting may not have been clear, my bad. I fully agree with you that those with a higher standard of living should not be allowed to pollute more. What I was trying to get at, is that simply tossing out a number, may not fully explain who is a "worse" polluter. @Uncle Gizmo provides a very useful perspective, that numbers by themsleves don't tell the whole story, as the US is one of the nations "exporting" its carbon footprint to China. So you can't ding China for that.
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:35
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
5,844
Not trying to blame anyone Uncle. Doing the opposite by pointing out that Biden was blaming China and so I was defending them!

People will justify anything to preserve their status quo. The person taking a long trip to Cornwall for a holiday will justify it as, "I need that damn holiday!" They burn the planet to the ground for a long weekend break!
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:35
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
5,844
My posting may not have been clear, my bad. I fully agree with you that those with a higher standard of living should not be allowed to pollute more. What I was trying to get at, is that simply tossing out a number, may not fully explain who is a "worse" polluter. @Uncle Gizmo provides a very useful perspective, that numbers by themsleves don't tell the whole story, as the US is one of the nations "exporting" its carbon footprint to China. So you can't ding China for that.
I agree Steve. It all depends on how granular you want to go. You can look at the portfolio of type of businesses each country has and the relative size of each sector. A country that focuses on say oil production (Qatar) will have a high rate of CO2 emissions per capita compared to say Greenland that is heavily reliant on fishing. Each is just exploiting their natural resources.

Note that Qatar is the worst per capita polluter and Greenland the least.

Source: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:35
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
14,452
Those living at the basic subsistence level would be close to having a 0 carbon footprint.

I'm not sure that's correct, something Jordan Peterson said about increase in living standards makes people more able and capable and interested in protecting the environment.
 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:35
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
14,452

Here's an idea, just kicking the wheels. Supermarkets have vast carparks.

How can they be encouraged to cover them in solar panels?
 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:35
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
14,452
I understand that fossil fuel companies receive government money, for what, I have no idea.

Need a list of all subsidies that oil companies and other fossil fuel companies receive, so that everyone can be made aware!

Then work on getting the subsidy money transferred to green alternatives, like solar, wind and subsidising the purchase of electric cars.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 05:35
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,715
I'm not sure that's correct, something Jordan Peterson said about increase in living standards makes people more able and capable and interested in protecting the environment.
I think that you are conflating two issues: desire and carbon "consumption". Those with a higher standard of living tend to "consume" more carbon. They will also tend to be more concerned (desire) about the environment. As an ultra extreme brazen example of this look at the Glasgow Climate Conference were the rich (high standard of living) attendees who have a claimed high desire to protect the environment "consumed" a massive amount of carbon.
 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:35
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
14,452
I think that you are conflating two issues:

Could well be. I don't know enough about it to be sure..

I understand that the bottom economic level have little choice in their source of fuel and are more likely to use heavily polluting fuels.

But it does make sense that if they move up the ladder and become less poor / more wealthy they will have more choice and more interest in their environment. Another, and very beneficial way to tackle climate change.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 05:35
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,715
I understand that the bottom economic level have little choice in their source of fuel and are more likely to use heavily polluting fuels.
Thanks for that additional thought. Those at the bottom of economic strata (living at a subsistence level) are likely to use more polluting fuels and conduct other environmentally damaging actions. However, their ability to negatively affect the environment may be significantly less than those who are further up the economic latter. Those further-up the economic latter probably use more resources even if those resources are more environmentally "friendly", such as flying a private jet that has "low" emissions thousands of miles to essentially transport one person to a meeting and back again.
 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:35
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
14,452
However, their ability to negatively affect the environment may be significantly less than those who are further up the economic latter

I don't know. But I suspect that there are billions of people at the bottom, enough people as a group to make a significant impact on global warming, possibly a bigger impact than any other group.it would be nice to see some figures.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 05:35
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,715
I don't know. But I suspect that there are billions of people at the bottom, enough people as a group to make a significant impact on global warming, possibly a bigger impact than any other group.it would be nice to see some figures.
You have a point. :unsure:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I decided to take a quick dive into some data (Electricity and Solid Waste Generation), which would not survive any academic scrutiny. So one can't really make any valid conclusion based on the data. But, at a very gross level, they do reflect a nations overall standard of living. Those with a higher standard of living tend to consume more.

"The total generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) in 2018 was 292.4 million tons (U.S. short tons, unless specified) or 4.9 pounds per person per day."
4.9 pounds translates to 2.2 Kilograms.

"The average per capita waste generation in 2012 was only between 0.78 kg and 0.8 kg
of solid waste per capita/day compared to the global average of 1.39 kg/capita/day" (emphasis added)
So, in the US, per capita solid waste is generated at approximately 2.75X what is generated in Africa.


US: ............. 12,994 kWh
Bangladesh: 320 kWh
Nigeria: ...... 145 KWh

So, in the US, people consume approximately 40X in electricity compared to Bangladesh.

Again, none of this would survive any academic scrutiny, but may partially address your question of: "it would be nice to see some figures."
 
Last edited:

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:35
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
14,452
This extract from Jeremy Clarkson's Sunday times piece points at what I was saying about the the lowest level of people and pollution:-


Extract:-
rather than going to the slums of Calcutta where two million people, living in poverty, cook their supper every evening on chulha stoves, which blanket the city in a thick yellow fog.

No idea on its accuracy, Jeremy is not someone I would consider a good source! Unless you want a good laugh!
 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:35
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
14,452
This extract from Jeremy Clarkson's Sunday times piece points at what I was saying about the the lowest level of people and pollution:-


Extract:-
rather than going to the slums of Calcutta where two million people, living in poverty, cook their supper every evening on chulha stoves, which blanket the city in a thick yellow fog.

No idea on its accuracy, Jeremy is not someone I would consider a good source! Unless you want a good laugh!

See this post:-

https://irate4x4.com/threads/jeremy-clarkson-on-greta-thunberg.382074/ https://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/threads/jeremy-clarkson-in-the-times-hilarious.320415/
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 02:35
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
6,274
In my opinion, it is best to consider environmental policies in light of the consequences in other spheres: balances of power, politics, peace, economics, etc. Everyone likes to say keep the politics out of it, until a guy with a turban shuts the pipeline down.

Everything must be considered in balance, in the end.
 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:35
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
14,452

The way I see it the problem is that to tackle global warming we need long-term solutions over the next decade at least.

The trouble is politicians are motivated by short-term solutions to get them back into power, they need tugs on this heart string all that heart string.

I can pontificate all day long about what I think should be done, what I think should happen, but nothing will happen!

The easiest thing is to sit back and wait for someone to come forward and pick up the baton, get some political force behind them. But like I said, politics doesn't work like that, not for something like global warming.

Politicians have their own agendas and pressures from big business that have invested interest in fossil fuels. It's no good going to the politicians and saying we want you to do this we want you to do that it just won't happen!

But if we can understand the system, understand how the fossil fuel industry obtains government grants and subsidies, then we can identify suitable leverage points and at least stop the Grant's going to these outdated industries and maybe push them towards renewables.

It's something Jordan Peterson said, he has done many presentations all around the world with thousands of people attending. These people have listened to his is relatively specialised psychology YouTube videos they have listened in-depth absorbed as knowledge.

Before YouTube we were spoonfed information because the method, a program on the TV, only had a few minutes slot to convey sophisticated information. They would sensationalize and cherry-pick the information to attract a wide audience.

But now we have a generation of highly intelligent people who have access to the whole picture if they want it and and an individual without becoming a celebrity can trigger action which can have a significant effect on the world.

The means is within everyone's grasp, no need to involve politicians with their agendas.

Ordinary people can and will make things happen as long as they can understand the mechanisms and the pressure points, no need to sit in the road blocking transport, no need to blame everyone for the situation we find ourselves in, we just need to manipulate things just like the big businesses do.

We just need the information and transparency to make it happen.
 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:35
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
14,452

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom